Tuesday, January 09, 2007

I have to weigh in, in response to this anonymous comment, posted on New Year’s Day:

Why on earth do we want to pave over everything and make everyone live in big, huge cities? I lived in Chicago for years, and it was a nightmare. In the summer there is a measurable heat bloom in major cities because they lack enough green area to handle direct sunlight. All of the pavement and concrete just absorb sunlight and create a residual heat. Just outside the city in the suburbs it is measurably cooler because sunlight is more naturally distributed with backyards and more trees.This rush to force everyone into massive cities is not healthy.

Argh! I wish more people understood this reality: In a big urban area, the more people who live out in the suburbs, the more acres of land get plowed up, trees uprooted and green area destroyed to build their new neighborhoods.

Do people who say they really, really love trees bother to think about all the trees (and wildlife) that died to build their subdivision?

I’m not saying everyone should be forced to live in cities. You couldn't make that happen even if you were stupid enough to try. But with good planning city living need not be “nightmare.”

Local government should provide enough green areas. Parks, greenways, street trees and green rooftops can make a big difference. Make city living more attractive – with parks and trees and safe neighborhoods and all the rest – and you’ll keep a lot of farmland and woods from getting paved over out in the 'burbs.

I say this as someone with a front and a back yard that I enjoy. I love to garden. I fully understand why people like houses with yards. But we should stop kidding ourselves that it’s more environmentally benign.

94
comments:

Anonymous
said...

Anyone driving on Charlotte roads can see that lack of greenery is the least of our problems. Charlotte is probably too green, seemingly covered in wild forrests in too many areas. I do not even see a distinction between city living and suburban living here, as most housings in or outside the city have a lush back yard.

To the previous anonymous. If you do not see the difference, then you are not yet living in the urban wasteland that city planners envision for you. They want you in an apartment within walking distance (1/2 mile) of a light rail station. You do not get your own backyard. You have to visit your designated local public park. You have to carry your pooper scooper for your dog. You have to by a monthly light rail pass.

Ballantyne is technically in the "city" of Charlotte. But the suburbs of the city of Charlotte are not the direction that Mary Newsom and the new urbanists approve of.

Mary, I think you missed the point. The original author that you were responding you (which was me) had a great deal of experience living the new urban experience. Chicago has an extensive elevated mass transit system, numerous public parks, high density housing, etc. Basically many of things you advocate are already in place in a city like Chicago, so we know what it would be like.

Chicago is a nightmare and anyone in their right mind would do everything to avoid recreating it.

1) The taxes are outrageously high to support the huge government infrastrucure to support the beast.

2) The regulation is so extensive, as is necessary with high density, that it leads to massive government corruption.

3) The cost of living is too high and makes housing so expensive that nobody can afford anything good without 2 or 3 roommates. Forget about a single salary family at the median wage. The high cost forces both parents to work.

4) Everything just looks old after a few years because nobody takes personal ownership of their immediate surroundings. Outside of your apartment or building, everything is government owned, so nobody cares about it. It decays and is unkept, as often happens in cities. In suburbs their is more personal ownership and yards and surroundings are maintained by individuals because they care.

5) The heat during the summer is overbearing because of the radiant heat from all of the concrete and pavement. There are regular news articles explaining this. Cities just do not distribute heat well. And this was Chicago with a ton of parks and Lake Michagan directly next to it. The Windy City. The entire city just bakes during the summer. 400 elderly people died in their apartments during the summer of 1995 because they were too scared to open their windows (for ventilation) because of the crime.

6) High density urban areas typically have MUCH higher crime rates.

7) Higher density just creates more congestion.

It really comes down to choice of lifestyle. Familes with children really tend to prefer a suburb lifestyle. They want a backyard where their kid can play in safety. They want good schools. They want low crime. They want ownership of their own place for some piece and quiet.

From my point of view, I have no desire to be woken up by the train going by every 15 minutes. I have no desire to hear the police or ambulence sirens going by so often.

Big cities are unnatral and just a miserable lifestyle. Many of us moved to Charlotte because it is NOT a big city. It has a small city feel, with many of the city amenities within a reasonable 20 to 30 minute drive.

This crazy rush to build a high density city in Charlotte is nuts. We should be building more office parks on the outer ring so that people do not have to commute to downtown. Bank of America and Wachovia should build more satellite offices and allow their employees to work at the satellite office closest to their home in the suburbs. Luckily Bank of America has started this process in Ballantyne.

Just my opinion. Light rail and big cities are simply not sustainable. Maybe nothing is truly sustainable, but I know from experience that it would be a mess to promote high density as a good thing.

I will not attempt to negate anonymous' view of the world, or at least Chicago, because my view is no more unfair than anonymous', it is just different.

I have been going to Chicago for over 30 years on business, and find it to be a marvelous city. Mary's point that subdivisions have removed more trees than the city is obvious, and can't really be disputed. Charlotte should be so luck to have the amount of public park space in the Uptown area as Chicago does. Grant Park alone is bigger than Uptown Charlotte.

I wonder if the cold of the Chicago winter is attributed to density as well?

I also wonder about someone who makes claims about crime as being MUCH higher in cities without substantiating it. A check of crime statistics will reveal that most crime is related to people who know eachother, and not random acts of roving gangs.

The biggest deterent to crime is community involvement, not turning the world away by living in one's own backyard.

Speaking of backyards, it would be nice if people who owned yards would take some pride in them, and not allow them to become suburban eyesores.

To wish that the growth of Charlotte would stop is not realistic. It would seem that people (and jobs) are leaving the northern cities for the south. It isn't going to stop. As those people keep coming, more taxes will be needed to support US, not THEM. It will be the whole community that will need to rise to the occasion.

Corrupt politicians are the results of a population that allows corruption by not participating in government. If we leave government up to others, we shouldn't complain of the government we get.

As I tried to point out at the beginning of this post, my views are only different, not better than anonymous.

There is one point which needs expansion. Urban living is different than suburban living how?What Charlotte has been until recently is almost strictly suburban. Dilworth, Myers Park, Elizabeth and Cherry are all suburban areas with individual yards and greenspaces. What the new urbanists want is no individual yards and public green spaces. I wonder if the ratio of homes to green space is much different.

What is actually taking up more land are bicycle and HOV, including bus and rail) lanes. The amount of usage is relatively small compared to normal vehicle lanes, so they remove green space for idealistic purposes which are seldom achieved.

The idea of bike lanes is to use less land, but they don't. All over Charlotte are blooming bike lanes with no users. Even if there were users, the amount of energy they use riding takes up more space on an individual basis when you count farmland, especially if they eat meat,than does the oil rig and other associated industry which supplies cars.

So we lose trees to bike lanes in the city and the countryside.

Finally, one can only suppose a limit on how much farmland and countryside can be used for housing is in the future. Look to Amsterdam for the future of that policy.

Lewis Guignard,I see tons of bikers on the bike lanes. Maybe you don't if you live in the Burbs ? These people generally are not as active as urban people. Unless you consider driving to the mall in the Hummer an active lifestyle. Now don't the 1% of you Burbanites that bike harp in on me. I know there are a few. No where near the amout near the core though.As for the HOV lanes; that's a Southern mentality. Drive anywhere else in the country and there are plenty of people using HOV's. No one here car pools so they don't get used much. It's not the cities fault. They are in the right. Residents that do no change with the times are in the wrong. Change constantly happen. Move with it and try not to become stagnant. Grab a coworker that lives close by and hit the HOV. You will get to work in no time flat.I don't understand all the complaining. Half of Charlotte is transplants. So if it's not going in the direction you want just leave. It's no biggie, you have done it before. Do it again.For those of you locals who complain move on as well. If you haven't yet lived anywhere else then it's about time you give it a try. The grass is not greener anywhere else. Actually it's usually colder and comes with more rain.This town is turning into a great city. Embrace it, enjoy it, come along for the ride.

Charlotte is on it's way to becoming the next Detroit. This urban wasteland that the city is seeking to create is just ugly. They are making the same mistakes in Charlotte that have been made everywhere else. The supposed "plan" is violated at will by exemptions granted to developers by the city council.

Enjoy the decline. You asked for it. I have moved to Union to get my one acre suburb paradise.

I continually am amazed by the ignorance of the human race. We are the most itelligent beings on this planet yet most of us cannot, or refuse, to figure out the basics of how the world works. Please do me a favor and go rent "The Inconvenient Truth" and watch it with an open mind. I hope that afterwards you will see why we should not all live in suburbs with big back yards and drive our big cars everywhere. Think of your children and grandchildren who will have to live with the consequences of our generation's choices.

Hey Union County,If you moved to Union then get off of our post.Enjoy the great open minded discussions on the Enquirer Journal. You moved. It's your new home. So stay there and leave the rest of us to our poor "decline".I am listing the site for you just incase your brain has started shrinking already from the lack of intelligent conversation out there.

To the previous Anonymouse:Please do me a favor and go rent "The Inconvenient Truth" and watch it with an open mind. I hope that afterwards you will see why we should not all live in suburbs with big back yards and drive our big cars everywhere.

I saw the movie. I agree with you. Global warming sucks and is happening.Do me a favor and read about "Peak Oil" with an open mind. Big city living is not the answer either. Peak Oil, which is the peak in oil production, marks the end of economic growth on this planet. We are estimated to reach that point between 2008 and 2015 (by different groups). Then every year thereafter, slightly less oil is available on a global basis. You can kiss your western lifestyle, both city and suburb, goodbye.

Think of your children and grandchildren who will have to live with the consequences of our generation's choices.

It is way too late for that. I seriously doubt our ability to produce enough food for this planet after oil begins the decline. It requires oil and natural gas to produce the amazing amounts of food per acre which we have achieved in the past 40 years.

You folks don't even comprehend yet that you are arguing about the wrong set of issues. We should be planning on an orderly powerdown. Not expanding cities and suburbs. We should each be planning an organized rural exit. Find your 10 to 40 acres and have an exit strategy when the desperate unemployed people are looking for food and resources.

Oilbull,Puuuuuuuuuuuhlease. We will never go backward. Well..........depends how far South you move.We are slowely gearing up for alterative energy as we speak. This will speed up if and when we approach "peak oil". With Dems in control we will see less tax breaks for oil slobs and more for R & D of alterantive energy.We already have tons of technology right now. We just need to implement it and get Americans off their lazy spoiled asses and embrace change. The days of your 10 m.p.g. hot rod or Hummer are fastly coming to an end.So what, the next generation of transportation will have it's "cool" factors as well. We will not all be cruising around in the same look alike vehicles.GM showcased it's all electric car the other day at the auto show. Something like 50 miles on a single charge and it's not a tiny vehicle. It's a full size sadan. Slated for release in 2010.We need to get more solar and wind genorators as well. Bush got one thing right by supporting more funding for off shore wind genorators.There's plenty of options so lets get moving and use them as they become available to us. It's good to finally see more hybrids on the road in Charlotte. There are 6 in my office alone and we only have 42 employees. But we are a far cry from some of the other cities in this country. The West coast is flooded with Hybrids. We in the South need to wake up and do the right thing. The more you buy the cheaper they become. Ten years from now you will be able to buy one anywhere from $10,000 - $80,000 depending on the luxury and your wallet.

Mary, how many trees does the Charlotte Observer destroy every day via the printing of 200,000 newspapers?

You are NOT in the position complain about other industries cutting down trees. Your employer (Charlotte Observr and McClatchy) is far more destructive to trees and wildlife than just about any other industry.

I find it amazingly hypocritical for you to even comment on anyone cuttin down trees or causing environmental damage. How many tons of chemicals are used in the creation of newsprint and ink?

Your employer seems to enjoy running the print ads for SUVs and new home construction in the suburbs. If you had any credibility, you would be lobbying your publisher publicly for a boycott on that type of advertising.

Hey, I am driving a Prius and I made my millions from oil stocks. Don't get me wrong, I like living in Charlotte. But I also fully recognize that oil depletion means much more than just transportation.

1/3 of our oil is used in the production of material goods. We need oil for the creation of food on this planet. So as oil declines, the implication are far greater than merely buying a hybid and moving on as if nothing else has changed.

Just about everything you use has some plastic in it. That is oil based. Paint, carpets, drugs, even crayons, are all based on oil as a key ingredient. The bulk of our society exists because of oil.

It is not just about gas in your car. It is about food in your stomach.

I cannot force you to read up on the topic. But it might be the best thing you could ever do to prepare for a massive change which is going to define this century.

Can we not derive oil from other sources ?If we all live in high density cities can we not get around easier on foot, bicycle, electric train ?It wouln't decrease all of our oil needs but eliminating cars would surely help most of it. A lot less need for plastics in the car, oil to drive them, oil for the tire production, etc.I think we will evolve into whatever is next.Who knows ? Maybe you are right and we all need to move back to Little House on the Prairie ?But it's a lot cheaper to put a .25 cent bullet in your head than to go through the ordeal of that crappy life. It's one thing if that's all you know. But once you have know more who wants to go back ?Lets move forward with this crisis.Hell, most people I see wandering about could live off their fat for good year or more :-)

Have you purchased your Prairie home yet ? Is it fully functional and ready to go ?

Lewis,The statement that you made that bike lanes are taking up more space is not correct. Charlotte DOT is using the existing road width, repaving it and painting new striping that narrows the car travel lane by a small amount and creating a bike lane.

A couple of quick responses:First, please, enough with the obscenities. It degrades the discourse. I want this blog acceptable to a wide variety of readers with differing levels of tolerance for crude language. I'd appreciate your help in that.

Second, I welcome readers from Union County or anywhere else.

Third, sorry but I haven't yet read James Kunstler's latest, "The Long Emergency," his prediction we're going to run out of oil. I heard him speak on it at the last Congress for the New Urbanism.

He's very pessimistic that current-day suburbia will survive, because it relies on driving, and thus on fossil fuels.

He's a very bright man who does solid research and writes compellingly. Whether he's come to the proper conclusion is a question I can't possibly answer without reading the book. Which I intend to.

Charlotte is neither Chicago nor Detroit. It will never be either city given the time period of peak growth (post-industrial versus industrial). As for cities being unhealthy, the burden of proof is on the accuser. Can you show that life spans of urbanites (if you can even define urban vs. suburban) are lower than rural or suburban residents (controlling for education, race, income, etc.)?

In fact, some studies suggest that suburbanites with their 1-acre backyards are just as fat or fatter than urban residents. An acre lot with a huge, unused front yard is nothing more than a carpet. Density, in the US context, is associated with higher levels of crime. However, Asian cities like Singapore are exceptions to the density=crime formula. It's not density, per se.

With the exception of a few areas that are crime/murder hotspots, cities are no less unhealthy than suburbs. In fact, a lot of the newer suburban developments are more "dense" than Dilworth, Plaza-Midwood, etc. As land prices continue to rise, density will rise and the "suburbs" will continue to evolve into more "urban" environments.

Buy 10 acres of land and get ready to revert back to a pre-industrial sociaty? It sound like somebody is hoping we go back to a sociaty of plantation bosses, etc. Let's hope not. Yes, the disappearance of oil resources should be of great concern, all more the reason to move forward with the progress of ethanol and other alternative energy resources. We have come a long way since the energy crisis and pollution of the 70's and the next 35 years should be just as impressive. Heck, even the northeastern cities are much cleaner now than back in the day. As long as we humans have the can-do spirit, we can solve the problems all the gloom and doom posters profess.

As for city living, nobody is pointing a gun to anyone's head and making them live in a high rise near a light rail station. As mentioned before, there are still many subdivisons, old and new, both in and out of Charlotte's borders to keep everyone happy for a long long time. What I don't get is why some people scoff at giving those of us who want to live in a unit without a backyard and dump our car the option to do so. A true city and its people recognize that one size does not fit all.

"What I don't get is why some people scoff at giving those of us who want to live in a unit without a backyard and dump our car the option to do so. A true city and its people recognize that one size does not fit all."

Because your urban utopian light rail dreams are being paid for by the 99% of the people who are nowhere near a light rail line. Why on earth is Mathews paying a 1/2 cent sales tax for your silly train?

Mary wrote:sorry but I haven't yet read James Kunstler's latest, "The Long Emergency," his prediction we're going to run out of oil. I heard him speak on it at the last Congress for the New Urbanism. He's very pessimistic that current-day suburbia will survive, because it relies on driving, and thus on fossil fuels.

Kunstler is one of the more extremist writers on the topic, but I know you follow his stuff based on the link you have, that is why I mentioned him. There are many writers on the topic of Peak Oil that are more relevant.

The point is, while suburbia is in trouble, so is any major city. Peak Oil represents the peak in oil supply. The problems don't start when the final barrel is pumped out of the ground. The problems start at the halfway point. It is a bell curve on the supply side. When the production rate falls, even slightly, the problems begin.

Big cities are equally dependent on oil and will be devastated by the coming collapse of economic activity. There are alternatives, but none replace oil. And don't fool yourself into thinking that trains and new urbanism is the solution. The last place you want to be after Peak Oil is in a crowded city with unemployed hungry people who are desperate for resources.

If you can afford it, best to have the place in the country which is off the grid. This is going to get ugly within the next 10 years.

Google this topic: Peak Oil. They consider that oil is much deeper than your car. It represents a raw material in just about every product you use and the bulk of your food production.

I live in Dilworth and love the ability to walk down East Blvd to eat,shop, etc etc. I hate driving. I suppose this makes me a devoted urbanite. Dilworth was originally a "streetcar suburb" and while it has some suburban trimmings I would have to disagree that it's the same thing as new subdivisions in Union or Lake Norman. The lots and older houses are smaller and closer together because they were built for urban and community interaction and logically the city has completely grown around us. Dilworth is a city neighborhood and the most popular place to live in Charlotte. As other posters have stated no one is forcing those who enjoy the suburban life to move into a condo along the Light Rail line. Those of us who love cities are excited about the increasing density and the convenience mass transit brings because these services only improve urban life for those of us who enjoy it.

The Peak Oil argument is Malthusian. He was ultimately wrong because he failed to consider technological advancements. Granted, there is truth in catastrophic prognoses (the world IS getting warmer, oil will get scarcer, wars/famine/disease/natural disasters will continue), but are the only options doom or gloom? I believe in shades of gray & silver

Because the 1/2 cent sales tax also covers all other public transit, including the commuter busses that already come into your town. Not to mention the line that will extend into Matthews if the shortsighted naysayers don't botch the 25 year plan.

But hey, why do I even bother trying to reason with some of you? It's like yelling into a brick wall to some of you cynics.

True, Kunstler is kind of nuts and for the most part he hates human beings. I believe part of his writing is eagerly anticipating the death of several billion humans on this planet simply because he thinks they need to die. Like I said, there are more rational writers on the topic of Peak Oil. But Mary Newsom references his writings sometimes so I thought she would know his thoughts on oil.

But he is correct on the simple fact of this. Oil is the cornerstone of modern society. Losing oil, or even having a drop in total supply, is devastating to our economy. There is nothing magical about new urbanism that will protect it any more than suburbia. This is much bigger than just gasoline for your car. Fossil fuels are critical to food production and just about material product you purchase.

"Because the 1/2 cent sales tax also covers all other public transit, including the commuter busses that already come into your town. Not to mention the line that will extend into Matthews if the shortsighted naysayers don't botch the 25 year plan. "

Mathews got nixed on a train. At best they get bus rapid transit in about 15 years.

And if we build all of the trains, the massive subsidies required will completely drain the 1/2 cent sales tax from the bus system.

It would far more sense just to focus all of our efforts now on bus rapid transit everywhere. Far more cost effective at moving people, more flexible and faster to impliment.

Because your urban utopian light rail dreams are being paid for by the 99% of the people who are nowhere near a light rail line,

Same reason I pay taxes for your kids to go to school and for poor people to receive food stamps, etc. That's how it works Bozo. Give and take. You don't always agree on everything. That's why you vote. You are registered I presume ?I am a single well off white male and I don't mind one bit paying my share of taxes. Even when I get less write offs than those with a large family. Large families use up more resources all the way around. If anything, they should be paying more of the tax burden. Old school thinking that needs to be rethought.

Because your mayor is intelligent enough to at least think you redneck farmers may be smart enough to ride it. Although I doubt it. You rather sit in traffic even if it takes 3 hours in the future. Anything but ride the rail. You will never admit defeat. It's the same as the Civil War mentality.

If any of you agree that Parks are important, take a close look at the so-called "complicated land swap" that will magically bring baseball to Charlotte and make everyone's life better.

Look at the plan. Marshall Park gets wiped off our public ground, and a mysterious "Second Ward Vision Plan" replaces it. Thats completely unacceptable. There is nothing complicated about the land swap. Greedy rich developers get everything they want, and the people get screwed.

It already happened in First Ward....one week I was strolling through the park on 7th St., the next week it was fenced off with signs showing a nice picture of a shiny new condo building.

We need to not only preserve our green space, but expand them. It has to be done now while we are in the early growing stages.

We as citizens can't stand by and continue to let the "Center City Partners" control our civic leaders. Its dispicable that these cretins can have anything they want from our city. Take Charlotte back.

1. Second Ward is getting a park in the middle of the redevelopment that is larger than Marshal Park.

2. Third Ward is also getting a 5.5 acre park within the Novare development and next to the ball field.Second Ward is slated for a park of the same size near Reids along with a UNCC campus, condos and retail.

3. They are working on a long/narrow park to go along the inner side of I277 between Mint and Brevard.

4. There is also a good sized park planned for the redevelopment of Piedmont Courts.

5. The Metropolitan development @ the old Midtown Square will be renovating the deteriorated creek to a "better than new'" look.

6. Center City Partners is working on a plan to bring an open air market to town.

I'm all for freedom of speech but it's too bad some have to resort to name calling and racist comments.

The reality is that we live in a popular city that has a lot to offer various types of people. As such, we can't protect the entire tree canopy if we continue to build sprawling subdivisions in tree covered areas. We aren't going to have a moratorium on development. We aren't going to make developers build on farmland only. Not everyone wants to live in a 500 square foot apartment. Therfore, as individuals we have choices to make. Public transportation is for everyone, particularly those who commute into the city from the 'burbs. People complain about congestion, loss of canopy and fuel consumption but ask for wider highways and the elimination of mass transit. Then they say they don't want to be like Atlanta. Go figure.

Right back at ya Burbanite. That's right, we are in your face. Not talking behind your back as is typical Southern style. Get use to it.If you don't like it go cry to your momma.Maybe she will cook yer up soma 'o dem' grits.

Public transportation would be equivalent to a bus system. Light rail has nothing to do with public transportation. It is a development strategy. Please understand the difference.

If your goal is to move people efficiently from point A to point B, then a bus system is the most efficient and cost effective way to accomplish that. All planners and even Ron Tober would agree with that statement.

Mary, some others have posted a relevant question for you to answer. You are saying that the suburbs destroy trees and wildlife. But isn't the Charlotte Observer equally guilty?

I have no idea how many newspapers you get per tree from wood pulp. Maybe 20? 50? 100? 200? Depends on the average size tree I guess.

But let's just estimate 100 copies of the Charlotte Observer per tree turned to pulp. Your circulation is about 200,000 newspapers per day. So that means you and your employer destroy about 2,000 trees per day to provide us your daily newspaper.

And maybe double that on Sunday based on the bulk of the ads for new suburban homes and SUVs and Walmart/Walgress/CVS inserts.

So at least 16,000+ trees per week bite the dust thanks to the Charlotte Observer. Or maybe 832,000 trees per year.

That is based on my guess of 100 newspapers per tree. Maybe someone can correct my math if they actually know.

The overall point is, the Charlotte Observer is an incredibly destructive company to trees and wildlife. Year after year. And if we count McClatcy, I am sure the number is just massive with their 30+ newspapers.

Mary, isn't it somewhat hypocritical for anyone in the newspaper or print media industry to criticize others for cutting down trees and destroying wildlife habitat?

To make matters even worse, the bulk of your product is within a landfill within a week of you producing it. So your newspaper is sending about 16,000 trees per week (minus whatever is recycled) directly into our landfills and causing more landfills to be required.

I never really though about it until I read this blog entry of yours. The newspaper industry might be one of the most destructive industries on the planet, on par with strip mining and the oil drilling industry.

I read recently that we are importing newsprint from China now to save money. I bet they get their wood pulp from the 3rd world. Do you think they are doing it in an environmentally friendly manner to protect the 3rd world rivers from topsoil errosion and other negative issues from logging? I wonder.

Mary, do you have any other industries you want to criticize? Or do you think maybe it is time for you to look in the mirror and realize that you might be part of the problem.

The New York Times on Sunday is a very thick newspaper. And it does 1,683,855 copies on Sunday according to Wikipedia. So if there are about 750 papers per tree that would be about 2,250 trees just for the Sunday edition each week.

Did you think the city would stop growing just because YOU moved here? Imagine those of us who were here 10, 20, 30, 40 years before... when Independence was one of the city's most interesting streets and the Arboretum was actually a forest. If you were one of the people who jumped on the economic bandwagon back in the '80s and '90s, you have no right to complain about the current development that is still trying to catch up with the growth of that period.

One big difference is that trees forested for production uses are replanted immediately afterward. They recycle the trees and land about every 10-15 years. These are "production" acres. Once a suburban development is cut down it is cut down PERIOD. You can drive by many, many Charlotte neighborhoods that have been built since the clear cutting of the 1980's and they still look the same. Yellow lawns and the single tree the developer gave them sitting in the middle of the front yard.Not exactly apples to apples.

I moved here during the boom in the late 80's.I'm not complaining one bit. I love it here. Great economy and now that more outsiders are moving in we also have great food.It's a win/win in Charlotte.Obviously most people didn't have a New Years resolution to stop bitching and complaining.

Frank, your comment that Charlotte DOT is repainting roads to make the lanes narrower, thus using no additional road may be true in some places, but it is not in others. One example is 115 from US 21 to Harris. Bike lanes on both sides are an additional amount of pavement. Further, there are no users to speak of. My point was and remains that bike lanes are less efficient methods of energy than automobiles because of lack of density of traffic and the cost of land of feeding the riders the calories they need to ride.

For those who think we are going to run out of petroleum products I ask you to look up "oil sands" and "oil shale". You may find the problem of oil depletion only exists as a scare tactic.

Currently the world "...consumes about 345 Quads per year of fossil fuel.....Oil shale deposits hold 10 million Quads; heavy oils are already being extracted from (tar sands)"

Publishers Weekly calls Huber and Mills’ book a “techno-optimist manifesto” that is “illuminating” in its logic, but while big on assurance it’s not so hot on specifics about where new energy supplies will come from.

I am not one of the global warming deniers. It's hot out there these days - this morning aside. But since we're talking about trees, cities, suburbs, trains, cars and the benefits and drawbacks of both, I've got a couple of questions for the enviro activists who post/scream/curse on this forum.

Here's a little quiz:

What produces 40% of US carbon emissions? One hint. It's not cars. It's electric power generation driven primarily by coal.

What uses electricity? Light rail, and plug-in hybrids cars. There is NO free ride.

Why are you NOT up in arms over Duke Power's choice to build 2 new coal powered plants to support Charlotte's growth?

Do you eat meat? The largest cause of deforestation on the planet is livestock production - both in land for grazing and feed production. Want to save some trees? Become a vegetarian.

What's a worse greenhouse gas - CO2 or Methane? Methane is 20 - 30 times more potent a greenhouse gas than CO2. Cattle constantly produce large amounts of methane. (I'll leave it to your imagination how.)

What else produces methane? Rice paddies - the main source of food in the developing world.

What major countries are rapidly increasing their emissions because of industrialization? India and China. Do you buy products made in China? How about when you call a customer service center and the call is routed to India? Do you hang up?

Just wondering if one of you could unravel all that for me before you complain any more about my house in the evil burbs.

anonymous writes of Publisher's Weekly, which is accurate. The Bottomless Well dwells on technological changes which have brought us to this point, despite the predictions of the naysayers of the past. Today's naysayers about energy need only examine the energy held in coal, uranium, oil sands, and oil shale, which are written about by Huber & Mills. The point of Publisher's Weekly would seem to be the authors should write of these things repetitively, even though all that need be said can be said in a few short pages, which they do, from which I quoted previously, which anonymous seems to have missed.

Production forests? Get real? Is all wildlife cleansed and prevented from ever using these forests? How exactly does that happen? Is all newsprint created exclusively from those wildlife free forests? Does the newsprint imported from China, at cheaper cost, get created in the same manner?

You are fooling yourself if you believe that the newspaper industry is environmentally friendly. It is one of the most destructie industries on the planet.

The arguments that some are making saying the Observer paper is as destructive as urban sprawl are not correct. I think that many just don't understand the lumber and paper business. Think of this business like you would agriculture, it's very similar. The woood is a crop that is planted, harvested and re planted. It is a strong, important industry to our economy.

Lewis, yes on newly constructed roads, small additional space is provided for bike lanes. On existing roads, no new space is added. I think the bike lanes need to be expanded so that citizens can safely ride their bikes to parks, to work or where ever for their own health and enjoyment. It's fun to ride bikes! Other benefits from riding bikes are less air pollution and less fuel consumption. It would be a tremendous asset for the city to have an integrated bicycle network for its citizens. We have a long way to go to get to that point but we need to continue working at it. Bike lanes are a low cost means for the city to help make our city healthier. I think a health safety cost benefit analysis would agree with me.

Regarding the comments about not wanting to live in a city like Chicago - don't use crime as a reason. Charlotte is one of the most crime ridden cities. According to Forbes magazine - Charlotte crime per 100,000 residents is 187. Chicago's is 132. Then again, Chicago is not so safe either. New York City's rating is 24! Pittsburgh - 25. I'm tired of letters to the editor and others referring to high crime in New York when it's not true as a function of the large population there. See link if you want to compare cities.http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/1/Metro_1.htmlKG

What gives any of you the authority to say one is worse than the other?

We have been cutting down trees since the dawn of time.

Until someone develops another material to replace it...which might have to be synthetic...we'll keep using trees.

I have great faith in our technological advancements and do not fear a "peak oil" apocalypse.Mankind has been overcoming obstacles since we first walked upright and there is nothing to indicate that we are slowing down.

Not all results may be to everyone's liking but life is pretty cushy if the complaint here is whether living in the "burbs" or city is better for the environment.

Cycling is a cure for fatassitis, a plague afflicting the citizens of our fair city. When I am at the airport, I take mental notes on the physical dimensions of the public. The use of cotton-per-capita has likely surged over the last 20 years. Forget urban sprawl, we need to focus on posterior sprawl.

Frank Burns,I think you are too optimistic about the lack of destruction from newspapers on forests. Do you really believe that all paper comes from trees planted as a crop? No old growth clear cutting going on in the lumber business? No tress being cut down in the 3rd world? Don't you read about in the in the newspapers?

Any significant tree requires greater than 10 years to grow to a harvestable size. Most types of trees are longer than that.

We are now importing newsprint rolls from China because they are cheaper. I wonder where China is getting their trees from. Do you think it is those non-impact forests? Get real.

The question over the relative healthiness of the suburbs vs. the city center depends on the criteria used.

Ms. Newsom's point has to do with minimzing the human footprint on the world around us while not overly burdening human quality of life, which is certainly a worthwhile consideration.

The anonymous poster's perspective concerns human comfort and well-being. I'd probably expand this to involve questions of public health as well. From this point of view, the poster is historically accurate. By and large, the most miserable conditions in which people have lived around the world have been in urban areas. Yes, Paris and Tokyo have significant densities. But so do Manila, Shanghai and a host of similar places. For most of those who have experienced it, urbanism has meant filth, crime disease, and squalor. (Of course, it has also meant economic subsistence when none could be found in the countryside, which is why people tolerated it).

Happily, Charlotte currently has a substantial affluent class and its big post-indusutrial employers don't foist a lot of externalities on the rest of us (well, I suppose there are a few tons of shredded paper). Because of this, we have the option of a much gentler urbanism than the Hobbesian nightmares of our ancestors or Third World counterparts.

My question is whether these pleasant conditions are sustainable. Physical location is less important to work today than it ever has been in history. This is especially true for the kinds of business that locate in areas like uptown Charlotte. As others have observed, there's no reason that many of those jobs have to be done there. Further, as the original poster pointed out, expensive, small, dense housing is a serious disincentive to having children (I've made the point several times here that the suburban vs. urban divide is more about the breeders vs. the barren than anything else). Maintainence of at least a replacement-level birth rate would seem to be prerequisite for long-term sustainability.

So, yes, right now we can make urbanism relatively comfortable while minimizing our impact on the environment with parks and tree ordinances and the like. But I'm concerned that the conditions that make that balance possible are fragile.

It is always interesting to read Cato's comments, as they are more objective than most, if not all others. They are also more philosophical. One question raised about sustainability has to do with replacement birth rates. In the US the white population is declining because of a low birth rate, the black population is remaining level, while the hispanic population is increasing due to a higher birth rate, which doesn't include migration patterns.

None of which have to do with whether cities are healthy. Are they? Some posters refer to higher temperatures, pollution and crime, which are generally associated with the higher population densities associated with urban areas. Does this make cities unhealthy?

Demographic data about life spans will indicate people live to a certain age and certain things increase their likelihood of an earlier death than other things. Is city living one of the questions asked by life insurance companies? No. Cigartte smoking, travel outside the US and dangerous sports make up the list.

Not whether one lives in suburbia or urbania, not even whether one is a couch potato.

Without question, urban areas are centers of smog and higher temperatures than the surrounding areas. Does this make them unhealthy? Or is unhealthy a relative term.

Anyone with kids knows that children get a lot of colds and illnesses in the first few years as they build their immunities. The doctor told us once that the best thing to do would be to live on a farm as a child. The medical science shows that children raised in a farm environment have the strongest immunity systems as adults.

Maybe it has something to do with how ultra sterile and anti-germ we attempt to be with children these days. Having a more natural environmnet (non-city, non-suburb) actually exposes kids to more of what they will need to be immune throughout life.

Higher child mortality? I dont know. But the immunity issue is settled science.

It may be true that super-dense urban environments aren't sustainable in the long term, but suburban environments aren't even sustainable in the SHORT term. In the mere 60 years or so since suburbs have been in existence, we've already seen conclusive evidence that we simply can't continue to feed the sprawling beast. Our dependence on automobiles has to end sooner or later, for pragmatic reasons. Even the best alternative-energy options are better suited to short-range driving.

This isn't to mention the disasterous effects that sprawl has had on our communities. Denser cities have MUCH more sense of place and connection than sprawly ones. In addition, the concentration of businesses in Uptown has been a boon for the city. BoA, Wachovia and Duke have poured money into this city in unprecedented levels, largely as a result of being located in a compact district with lots of rivalry. Satellite campuses, like Wachovia's base out near the University, have virtually no impact beyond job creation; they're designed to be inward-turned corporate fortresses. Compare that to the concerts, museums and parks that Wachovia is drawing to S. Tryon St.

Urban living isn't perfect, but a healthy urban core is a necessity... unless you want to be the next Detroit.

Our dependence on automobiles has to end sooner or later, for pragmatic reasons.

Not really. The new plug-in hybrids coming have an all electric range of 40 miles. The real cost of driving is about $1 per day in electricity, which is far cheaper than light rail ($17 subsidized by taxpayers for each rider).

This isn't to mention the disasterous effects that sprawl has had on our communities. Denser cities have MUCH more sense of place and connection than sprawly ones.

The suburbs are wonderful, cleaner, safer, kids playing in the cul-de-sacs, schools having higher test scores, etc. It evidence is clear. Families with children prefer the suburbs.

Not really. The new plug-in hybrids coming have an all electric range of 40 miles. The real cost of driving is about $1 per day in electricity, which is far cheaper than light rail ($17 subsidized by taxpayers for each rider).

First, if this area turns out to be the next Atlanta you're going to be doing a lot more than 20 miles a day. As it stands, commuters from Concord/Rock Hill to Uptown are already hitting that barrier. Anyone who lives in Atlanta can vouch that 2-3 hours of driving per day can ruin the "suburban experience" pretty quickly. Second, the per-taxpayer cost of mass transit is high because we live in a sprawling region... if we densify a bit (which WILL happen, whether you like it or not) the cost will go down. The denser the city, the more efficient the transit costs. But the rails have to be there first for densification to occur; it's not a chicken-egg situation.

The suburbs are wonderful, cleaner, safer, kids playing in the cul-de-sacs, schools having higher test scores, etc. It evidence is clear. Families with children prefer the suburbs.

This may be true of brand-new suburbs, but it is not universal. 30 years ago, your description above could have applied to neighborhoods off Eastway and Sharon Amity. But over time, those neighborhoods got pulled into urban sprawl, so families fled to the next "ring" outward... which at the time was the Univeristy and Highway 51 areas. Now people are deserting those neighborhoods in favor of towns entirely outside the county... which are already being overwhelmed and showing signs of poor planning. Next, we're going to see people settling in towns even farther away, while the Charlotte-area suburbs head the way of the current middle-ring neighborhoods. It's a vicious cycle that's eaten up cities like Atlanta and Miami, and WILL rip this city apart if we don't learn from their mistakes. Trying to run away from the city simply will not work; if you want a small-town lifestyle you need to find a job in a small town (there's the trick) and move there.

Actually to solution is to stop trying to force people and jobs artifically back into an inner core city. This is what creates the congestion. The new companies moving to Charlotte in the past 10 years have rarely been locating directly downtown. They are locating in Huntersville, Mooresville, Concord, Kannapolis, Rock Hill, etc. The land in cheaper, the schools are better and the housing is more affordable.

Even Bank of America is moving jobs out of Charlotte. They just started a satellite office in Ballantyne to allow south Charlotte employees avoid the drive into downtown. More companies are expected to follow this model. It makes much more sense rather than doing a crazy train plan that cannot be justified under any rational fiscal model.

You're contradicting yourself; if congestion is increasing, and density causes congestion, and the city is growing less dense... at least one of those statements is incorrect.

BTW, Bank of America is also building a large office tower adjacent to a brand new Ritz-Carlton hotel in Uptown, probably to complement the 50-story Wachovia tower being built next to a three-museum cultural complex. Obviously the major employers are building MORE, not less, in the center of the city... thus increasing the need to establish permanent mass-transit options.

You're contradicting yourself; if congestion is increasing, and density causes congestion, and the city is growing less dense... at least one of those statements is incorrect.

BTW, Bank of America is also building a large office tower adjacent to a brand new Ritz-Carlton hotel in Uptown, probably to complement the 50-story Wachovia tower being built next to a three-museum cultural complex. Obviously the major employers are building MORE, not less, in the center of the city... thus increasing the need to establish permanent mass-transit options.

As the suburban rings age, and the complexion of the neighborhood changes, people will choose to move rather than confront and control there environment. "They're not like us, lets move."

Developers encourage this by taking previously unappealing land and offering it as "complete with bonus room." Maybe that is where BOA employees keep their yearly bonuses.

It seems to me that most of these new suburban developments do not want "others" coming to their communities.

Can you imagine building a minor league baseball stadium in Ballentyne, or a performing arts center at Lake Norman? Those roads are already congested, how would they handle that?

Telecommuting and remote offices are fine for some activities, but any employee who is interested in building a career instead of just getting a paycheck will fight to be in the corporate center.

Downtown Charlotte is becoming a sea of construction cranes, both commercial and residential. When the baseball stadium and complimentary park issues are finalized, those projects along with the NASCAR Hall of Fame will add new public projects. And don't forget, there is a new Federal Courthouse to be built across from the Bobcat's Arena. Speaking of which, the old Federal Courthouse will then become the Queens College Law School.

Oh, forgot about the Wake Masters Program moving to the center city!

We are seeing along South Boulevard, and with announcements like Doug Smith's today about a Myers Park Condo infill, that developers are moving from "bonus rooms" to density and 1200 sq ft urban lifestyle. Transit is causing this and will continue to cause this.

When the University section of light rail begins construction, look for HUGE changes along North Tryon.

My repeated hopes are that the elected officials have the vision to see that this city will choke without a comprehensive rail system and encouragement for density.

Look at the fate of Knights Stadium, built in Ft. Mill when sprawl seemed like a good idea. Look at the fate of the Charlotte Coliseum. If it had been built in a sensible location to begin with, the location for the new one wouldn't have been such an issue.

The fact is, nobody wants to meander around the suburbs in their free time. When you want to LIVE, you head to the city center where the action is (or should be). This is true of every well-designed and vibrant city, and is becoming more true of Charlotte.

The train construction would stop after South Blvd is complete. That line already has full funding for construction. But the future train lines would all be dead. They are very iffy now because federal funding is a big question mark for the other corridors. But if the sales tax were repealed, they would all certainly be off of the table for the next 10 to 20 years.

The problem with the old coliseum was because it was "old". Lack of luxury boxes and the new designs on the interior which are more profitable. It had nothing to do with location of the coliseum. They sold that place out for years with the Hornets. At one point they had the NBA record for most consecutive sellouts during the Larry Johnson and Alonzo golden years.

The trian lines will keep coming until complete. They aren't stopping for a few narrow minded complainers. Just like YOUR God loving BUSHman who does whatever he wants. The city leaders will also do what they want no matter what the public says.But the majority of the public wants it and will get it.

Here's an idea !To all of you against progress and center city development........STAY OUT !Please vote as you wish, stop complaining and then STAY OUT of our uptown. We are building a strong residential base and soon will not need your dollars to support any retail or dinning. So leave you country butts at home.Thanks !!

If the sales tax is repealed, as appears likely based on polling data, then trains are dead. The federal funding is questionable right now even with the sales tax in place. The state funding doesnt happen without federal funding.

If the sales tax is repealed, there is simply no way to get any of the federal or state funding. I am not writing this to advocate either side. I am simply telling to reality of funding for light rail. With no sales tax, it is impossible.

If I recall, the Charlotte Hornets sold out the old Coliseum for many, many years in a row. The new arena is about 1/2 full most nights. I am a season ticket holder for the Bobcats. Trust me, I know.

Sellouts aren't the issue; that has more to do with fan interest than anything, which has nothing at all to do with location. The point is that the Coliseum is "dead weight" in the suburbs, to the point that it's being demolished rather than re-used (a la Cricket Arena). The same thing will likely happen to Knights Stadium, which is a much more clear-cut case of amenities being isolated and dying off in suburban locations.

So nobody can claim that the old Coliseum was a failure or the new arena is a raging success based on city/suburb issues.

The Coliseum was promised to generate a district of sports bars, entertainment options and retail activity. In that respect, it was a total failure. If you are a Bobcats season-ticket holder, then you know how active the area is when there is an event at the arena; full restaurants, bars, and even use of public transit (egad!). Now there's a huge retail/entertainment complex being built a block away. In that respect, the new arena has already trumped the success of the old one... primarily by virtue of location.

You must have missed the article in the Observer a few weeks ago about the LACK of action from the new arena. The bars and restaurants were complaining that nobody comes early or stays later. Basically there is no change to the situation prior to the arena being built.

As a season ticket holder, our usual habit is to go straight to the stadium, eat inside of the stadium at the club, then go home after the game.

I have yet to eat at a restaurant near the stadium while attending any event. This was confirmed by the market research reported in the Charlotte Observer

I don't know where they get their market research done but they should fire them. Give it a try the next time you go to a game. Go try and eat out somewhere before. IMPOSSIBLE. Go try to grab a drink afterwards. You better be one of the first 500 out of the arena or you can hang it up.

^ I saw the article and I agree with the post above. Try even getting a seat in Brixx, Mert's, Ri-Ra, , or Dixie's before a game.

Go back and read the article; it plainly says that the restaurants were complaining about low returns on "off" nights like the Dolly Parton concert, but had good results from Bobcats and Checkers games: http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/news/local/15850305.htm

But in any case, it's a plain and simple FACT that there is a large amount of development being triggered by the arena; look at Epicentre, the new hotel tower and the planned revitalization of Brevard. That's far beyond the "results" we saw at the Coliseum's location: four lanes of tail-lights in either direction.

The arena makes great sense. But the simple fact is that there should have been more private money involved in the deal. The public clearly voted No on the arena. $250 million in welfare for billionaires is not the primary purpose of government. Especially when we have the 8th most dangerous city in the USA and our roads are falling apart.

The arena is wonderful. No doubt about it. I enjoy games and concerts there. But the financing of the arena is a public relations disaster.

About Mary and The Naked City blog

Mary Newsom is an Observer associate editor and op-ed columnist who's been covering growth, neighborhoods, urban design, sustainable development and related topics since 1995. In "The Naked City" you'll read her take on those topics and others.